When it comes to aphorisms, ‘Oldie but Goodie’ is high on my list of suspect examples. Generally quoted by the generation above mine to fill the void of laughter following a particularly hackneyed joke,  it only  rolls happily off the tongue when served with lashings of irony.

Such was my reaction to a ruling published by the Israeli tax authorities the other day. It stumbled through a long preamble, only to mention, before things really warmed up, that it was essentially in line with another ruling from Christmas week in 2016. It begged the question: ‘ Why waste busy peoples’ time knocking out another one?’ Was it because it was so enjoyable the last time, we had to be fed it again?

Not quite.

The new ruling, though causing no surprise to the cynics that make up the numbers in our profession, is well beyond a joke. The Man on the Clapham Omnibus would surely ask: ‘How could they?’

Well, they can, and they did, and it was obvious they would.

The ruling related to an individual who had left Israel for the US, breaking residency, and  subsequently returned home. As part of his US salary package, he received options with various vesting periods. The tax authorities had to decide what part of the financial benefit from exercising the options should be taxed in Israel.

Thus far, we were in 2016 country. That ruling, based on court precedent, established that the profit earned abroad from options exercised while the individual was still abroad would not attract any tax in Israel, as it was not sourced in Israel. So far, so good. Given that information, and asked an inane quiz question: ‘What  taxation would apply to the profit earned abroad during the vesting period if the options were simply exercised in Israel on the individual’s return to Israel?’, our Clapham Omnibus gent would reasonably have come up with: ‘Zero’. At that point, the trapdoor under his upper deck seat would have opened and sent him crashing into the arms of the conductor collecting fares below.

The decision given, in 2016 and once again in 2018, was that – although Israel operates a standard modified personal tax basis (Israeli residents are taxed on their internationally sourced income, and foreign residents on their Israeli sourced income), as salaried employees are charged to tax in Israel on a cash basis, the entire amount should be charged to tax in Israel, even though it was not sourced in Israel.

The 2016 decision, with its literal accuracy but flawed concept (cash basis is a timing concept, not a country source concept), stopped there. Clambering to his feet, the bus inquisitee – still hoping for the holiday for two in Benidorm – would have accepted the challenge of the next question: ‘If the individual once more leaves Israel, and he subsequently exercises options abroad, part of the vesting period of which was while he was Israeli resident, what would be his tax in Israel?’ Easy! Already seeing in his mind’s eye his six-pack lying on the beach next to his bright yellow lilo, he would answer: ‘Zero! He is on a cash basis!’ At which point the floor would open up and – if he managed to avoid the rear axle of the bus – he would be left, not believing his bad luck, in the middle of the road, holiday dreams in tatters. All thanks to the November 2018 decision that – correctly – states that the income sourced in Israel is taxable in Israel with no reference to where it was received. The problem is that it also restates the 2016 ruling’s cash-basis conclusion, making it inconsistent and illogical.

The 2016 ruling brought a sardonic smile to my face. The 2018 ruling is laughable.

I think I’ll try this one on my kids.